Mind boggling: Government spends an average of $60,000 per household in poverty.

Here's a story on the amount of welfare money spent on the poor.  Turns out it averages out to over $60,000 per household in poverty.  That doesn't mean each family gets $60,000 but it's an average.   I suspect a good share of that is eaten up by government bureaucracy.

New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011." 

 It's the biggest item in the government's budget.

A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)

 Here's a breakdown of the welfare spending:

What this says to me is government is an extremely inefficient, costly way to address the needs of the poor.

It's all about worldview: Biden, charity and helping others. Or is that the government's job?

There are more interesting comments coming from Vice President candidate Joe Biden. They reveal how he views the world.

In addition to ticking off Catholic bishops with his pro-abortion views espoused as a self proclaimed practicing Catholic, he's also used Catholic doctrine to support his view that people have a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. He said, "Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most."

He sees the answer to the social problems of the day resting squarely on the shoulders of government not private individuals and groups. The Wall Street Journal reviewed the release of his and his wife's tax returns and found that they "reported an average of $380, or 0.2% of their income, in annual charitable contributions over a 10-year period.” He doesn't believe he has a responsibility to help the less fortunate; that's the government's responsibility. That's reflected in him giving close to nothing from his personal income to help the less fortunate.

The problem with his views and actions, which no doubt reflect his worldview, are they're fundamentally wrong. Government is institutionally unable to give to the poor and less fortunate what they truly need the most -- personal involvement and moral challenge and encouragement.

It's said, "Look at a person's checkbook to see what they value." In Joe Biden's checkbook, there's nearly nothing to help the less fortunate.